Red Rock “Numbered” on MP?

Interesting Change ... also notice the 1st and 2nd pullout now just called Calico 1 and 2 respectively

My guess is so they kinda flow in “order” around the loop?

Looks bush league to me.

Exact opposite ordering from the guide book.
this decision must have been made by committee. 

Jorge Jordan wrote: Looks bush league to me.

Agreed. I don’t think lumping all the bouldering together is a bad idea and think that’s a welcome change . But the numbers looks hack and nobody calls them “Calico l” and “Calico ll” which are then also reffered to as the pullouts ... but the. Also are labeled 3 and 4 ?

james schaefer wrote: Exact opposite ordering from the guide book.
this decision must have been made by committee. 

The RR admin I asked about it said it wasn’t him ... so I would be interisng to see who decided it was a good idea.

Interesting...of the two (of 3) commenters whose "home town" is identified, both are from the Vegas area and, presumably, know RR "cold".

If you'd never been to RR, wouldn't some kind of logical "geological" order for the areas be easier to follow than alphabetical?  Except for "Calico I" being "Pullout 1" (and same for 2) the clockwise listing on a one-way road certainly seems logical.

 

M. Morley wrote: Tough crowd. I made the changes. Seemed logical enough to me, but I'm open to suggestions.

I think it was fine the way it was. The exception being pulling all the bouldering into one category ....that was a solid move. There isn’t a way to keep them in order but without the numbers? it’s the numbers I think that at the most off putting. 

That and with the first four things being labeled Calico.... I could see someone seeing the 1 next to Calico basin and getting it mixed up with Calico 1 and then seeing Calico 1 with first pullout next to it and not understanding where they are seems to muddy things in my opinion.

Robert Hall wrote: Interesting...of the two (of 3) commenters whose "home town" is identified, both are from the Vegas area and, presumably, know RR "cold".

If you'd never been to RR, wouldn't some kind of logical "geological" order for the areas be easier to follow than alphabetical?  Except for "Calico I" being "Pullout 1" (and same for 2) the clockwise listing on a one-way road certainly seems logical.

 

Exactly we picked up on that order because we live here .... otherwise we wouldn’t have known that they were in order.  It’s not mentioned that is a geological order on the RR main page and really you can certainly envision it flowing like that as far as “oh I guess that makes sense” but in reality it doesn’t 

Baffling change, 2/10 would not recommend to a friend.

John Wilder wrote: I think it makes sense. I don't like the numbers and wish you could order areas like you can routes so it would look cleaner, but I like that they're in order now.

Not a huge fan of the calico peaks area, I think that should be in the basin or the pullouts (which are technically named Calico 1&2).

Overall, I think it's a good change and good for those who don't live here trying to get their bearings.

It makes sense to you because you live here aswell ... and you can infer what was they were going for because you have a frame of reffernce. You can say “Oh yeah I guess Calico basin would be ‘1st’ doing it that way” or ... “sure promiss Land is ‘between’ willow and icebox if your gonna order things like that”but in reality they aren’t things aren’t like that it’s just making it more confusing.

The only person to not live here to respond referenced it as “clockwise order on a one way road” .... which again isn’t the case ...half of those places aren’t even on the loop.

You’ve certainly lived here longer than me John so you might have the case study on me to back it up but I’ve never heard a climber say “Oh yeah it’s over at Calico 2 in the Black Corridor”

Regardless of the order, the numbering is non-standard.   No other area I frequent is setup like this.  So it creates a bad user experience to people familiar with using MP generally.

"Every area on MP is Alphabetical... OH YA except all of Red Rock has confusing numbers in front of them and they are ordered geographically".

And as soon as an extra area gets added to the middle of the list, it adds a whole new maintenance task of changing all the other names.

Allow areas to be sorted without making a hack out of the sort, or just leave it standard like the rest of MP.  

-jj (i live here too)

John Wilder wrote:

I'm confused why you think ordering the areas in order as you encounter them is confusing for people who don't live here. 

They're literally in order as you drive up to them. As for Calico 1 &2, you're right on how people refer to them,but the signage that the BLM has posted refers to them as Calico 1 &2, and thus, if you are looking for the black corridor and you only have mountain project to go by, this *may* help more.

In any case, I don't think this is a big deal. I agree the numbers are annoying and I think that mp should consider making areas sortable like routes because personally, when I go to other areas, I find mp to be extremely unhelpful in figuring out where areas are just by looking at the list of them. This approach has merit, IMHO.

So I can pull into the loop and I’ll come to Calico basin first? That’s why it dosent work.

You say you find it extremely unhelpful that things are just in a list... this is literally just in a list. The only reason this list makes sense to you is because you can see the order. Just looking at that list ... if you’ve never been here before ... what’s the fifth stop on the loop? How would you figure that out . The old way didn’t have them in order but also didn’t allude to some kind of order ... numbering hem offers you order but falls short.
I’ve never been to RMNP if someone put all areas there in some kind of geographic order with numbers it might make technical sense to someone from there ....but unless I knew that is what the numbers were meant to represent how are they going to be useful to me?
Could someone just intuitively make the leap that these are a general geographic order.. sure.... it’s more likely people will take these numbers as the order of the loop since 90% of RR visitors initially assume that RR climbing is contained within the loop. I think it’s just going to confuse people.

The ability to sort areas like routes (L to R, R to L, or Alpha) is long overdue...

...but not sure numbering crags in RR is the way forward.

Also:

• First Pullout, not Calico I
• Second Pullout, not Calico II
• Red Rocks, not Red Rock (National Conservation Area) 

+1. Love this. Kinda bush league I mean I see what you mean... so what MP isn't exactly a visual wonderland.
Yo James! Same order as some guides ;p
Exactly no one will look at this list and think they're missing something, some piece of info about the area, by not seeing this list in alphabetical order.
I think this list starts you out one step ahead without adding any extra clicks. Except for bouldering which it sounds like people like. 

Yes, I think Calico Basin does need to be separated from those areas that are accessed from the loop road. as "01" and "02" with 1st pullout =03 is confusing.  Calico Basin, Blk Velvet, etc, etc could/should probably just be alphabetical, but an obvious SORT of the road-access areas I think is logical. (Oak Creek, which can reasonably be accessed two ways presents a slight issue, although I'd venture to guess 80-90% of climbers access via the loop road and the dirt road off it it instead of the longer approach from the main highway.)

 If the guidebook(s) list the loop road areas in reverse order, remember this: the road was two way when the first guidebook(s) were written.  Also, I think Joe Herbst lived south (Blue Diamond???) so maybe that's why Joanne U started the 1st guidebook in the south and worked north and sort of counter-clockwise. Also, I think Black Velvet and Windy Canyon (Jubilant Song) were the first areas "developed".  ( Pullout 1 & 2 have only become super-popular since the advent of bolted sport climbs.)

Many "sub-areas" do not lend themselves to ANY kind of logical "sort".  Look at Mt Lemmon: Sure, lower rd, middle rd, upper rd...are logical but the sub-areas within: what do you do? ...Sort by altitude??? sort by L-R but what about the sub-areas that are "way back", plus you're dealing with sub-areas on both sides of the road!  How about the High Serria ??!   Basically, "forcing" a sort of ALL sub-areas presents more difficulties than it solves. 

That being said, SOME sub-area's within a larger AREA do have a logical sort: L-to-R at the Gunks or any other long wall where you come upon it and see it L-to-R (or R-to-L); South-to-North (or East-to-West) in a valley like Crawford Notch NH, or along the Kancamangus Highway, and counter-clockwise on a one way road. Using a pre-fix number to get this order seems reasonable.  Several NH and ME AREAs have been set up this way and no-one has mentioned it as a problem.  (I think the Gunks, now too)  Most think it an improvement, where applicable.

  The MtnProjct "Find" still finds the sub-areas even with their "01", "02" prefix.    I'd guess the issue with RR is that the guidebooks have it the "order" other way, for historical reasons that, in my opinion, no longer apply.

 

   
 

Both options have their some merit... but a vote for organizing crags based on location. Your guidebooks don't list the crags in alphabetical order, do they?

The way they set it up for Tahquitz/Suicide, is with letter prefixes, like

(a) Leftmost crag
(b) another crag
(c) Center Crag
(d) right crag

And I believe I've seen this setup at a couple other places. I think it looks reasonably clean and keeps things organized.

If the numbering method is offensive to the RR folks, perhaps consider a "Mileages / Crags" section on the main RR page a lá Boulder Canyon ( mountainproject.com/area/10…) , albeit with some descriptive sub-headings to reduce confusion?

It’s a terrible change ...and that’s not a judgement on you’re effort , and like you said maybe your just handcuffed by the coding of the site and this is as close as you can get for now but this itteration of what you're trying to do falls short imo.

Why even the change in the first place? Were admins swarmed with people saying they were lost or something ? 

Nicholas, you wouldn't happen to have a number phobia, would you? Obviously it would be nicer if admins didn't have to use numbers or letters to order subareas, but where it works it is a pretty minor aesthetic deficiency to be able to give a sense of the  order. Ideally, we would have the option to order and a note in the description would say how it is ordered (example r>l or in the left side and out the right in the case of a canyon). That could be a mess though.

Find an overhead view and label it like the excellent Smith rock page.  The only way to improve it would be to have the areas, which are lettered, match the numbers in the picture.  Link the pic in the area description.

M Sprague wrote: Nicholas, you wouldn't happen to have a number phobia, would you? Obviously it would be nicer if admins didn't have to use numbers or letters to order subareas, but where it works it is a pretty minor aesthetic deficiency to be able to give a sense of the  order. Ideally, we would have the option to order and a note in the description would say how it is ordered (example r>l or in the left side and out the right in the case of a canyon). That could be a mess though.

Yes I’m sure I have a number phobia .... super terrified of numbers you got me....

That’s kind of my point is that ...it doesn’t work here ... the asthetic bothers me ... but that’s not my gripe ... it could create more confusion than I think people are realizing for reasons I’ve mentioned but I’ve said my peace on it and no longer care to have a back and forth about it.